« SEXISM IN THE SENATE | Main | WHERE IN THE WORLD IS LYNETTE? »

October 02, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

goesh

I try not to ignore too much history. A few general highlights of collective survival: the war of 1812, the Civil
war, the atrocities of post-civil war Jim Crow, World War I, then Wowen's Suffrage and America didn't collapse, the great depression, world war 2, Korea, the tremendous upheaval of the civil rights movement, hippies, the Women's Movement and all of us men still retain our testicles, Viet Nam. So really, what would happen if Sarah Palin got elected Vice President simply because she was/is a woman? Ignoring the fact that she is a sitting Governor, former mayor, has a college degree, business experience and chose to birth some children, what terrible things would befall the nation? Remember, she would not be President. The last commentator stated: "it just kills me that you really think that Sarah Palin is even slightly qualified to lead a country just because she's a woman."

I will go first. I concede. If Sarah Palin is elected Vice President simply because she is a woman, then all the "backwater, white-trash crank hole in the middle of nowhere" people from Wasilla (A. Connor Eddleman's words) will descend on Washington, take control, impose martial law and force all women wear chastity belts. That is sound logic for not voting gender despite her attached, significant qualifications.

Tell your daughters "you too can become Vice President" - push the damn button in the voting booth then set your sights one notch higher.

JAMES

THE REASON WOMEN ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY REPRESENTED IN THIS COUNTRY IS BECAUSE OUR DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEM, VOTER FRAUD IS AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE, REMEMBER ELDRIDGE GERRY WERE THE TERM GERRYMANDER IS DERIVED FROM OR LBJ'S NOTORIOUS BALLOT STUFFING IN HIS SENATE RACE OR JFK AND THE ALL TO WELL KNOWN CHICAGO MACHINE.
WE NEVER BEEN A TRUE REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY DESPITE THE SLOGANS
PAKISTAN FOR CHRIST SAKES HAS HAD A WOMAN AS THEIR LEADER.
WE NEED PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION WHICH WOULD TOTALLY ELIMINATE GERRYMANDERING AND DISCOURAGE VOTER FRAUD AS WELL AS MINIMIZE POLARIZATION (ALL SIDES HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE AND HAVE TO GOVERN BY CONSENSUS).
EUROPE USES PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AS DOES THE REST OF THE FREE WORLD.
WE NEED PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION PARTICULARLY SAINTE-LAGUE OPEN LIST VOTING PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, SWEDEN HAS THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF SAINTE-LAGUE LIST VOTING PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
READ THIS REPORT:

http://fairvote.org/?page=413 http://fairvote.org/?page=414

Women's Representation Worldwide
There is no country in the world whose representative body fully reflects the percentage of women in its population. However, some come closer than others. Nordic countries average roughly 40%, more than twice that of North America. These countries all use some form of full representation. Germany uses a mixed system whereby some seats are elected using full representation and others from single member districts Data from these countries is especially valuable in comparing the effectiveness of both systems. In the 1994 German election, the percentage of women elected from single-member districts was 13%--about the same as in the United States--while the percentage elected from the full representation contests was 39%. These two countries demonstrate that when all cultural and geographic factors are equal, full representation typically results in higher representation of women.

Cultural values are another important factor in women’s representation, but even countries where social norms discourage women’s political involvement, women benefit from full representation. Switzerland, for example, did not grant women the right to vote until 1971; yet using a full representation system, women today compose 24% of the Swiss legislature. In less than 40 years, Switzerland has achieved higher women's representation than the U.S.

goesh

It certainly is long overdue for more women in government. I saw/heard Geraldine Ferraro comment shortly after the debate ended. What a quality person she is. I'm a male Republican and I was very happy to hear her state that as a woman, she was hoping Sarah would do well and she had wished her well. She could have and should have gone further and commented on the sexist trashing of Hillary and Sarah. She had nothing to lose by going the extra step and speaking out on it and it could have been one of those real historical moments and even quite possibly a turning point. You know, alot of history rests on small fulcrum points that caused cascading events that became historical fact. It was a small window, a shot that should have been taken but I personally don't hold it against her for not pulling the trigger. Be vigilant for such windows of opportunity and take the risk - McCain certainly did and I applaud the old white male career politician for doing so. Vote the gender on this one, it is a rare window. Since suffrage came into force in about 1920, you women have been but twice represented in the number 2 spot so up it by one and give us the first woman VP. It's all on your shoulders. You know, when the Pilgrims set foot here, the first one off the boat who first set foot on the new land was a male and the women came last. Act now, put that first step in the land of the Vice Presidency then collectively begin to work to put a woman in the Presidency - many of us men will be behind you on that, we really will.

A. Connor Eddleman

I cannot understand how you base your beliefs on something so shallow as whether someone is a man or woman. It is tragic that more women aren't involved in politics, but the fact that people like you will vote for someone simply because they are female is outrageous. Sarah Palin shows practically no understanding of this country's condition, foreign policy or economic principles. She was chosen as VP by McCain purely as a political move to pick up angry Democrats who desperately wanted Hilary to win. Understand that I'm not a fan of either candidate, they're both politicians and hence both liars under the influence of big-money campaign "contributions," and frankly I would vote for a woman candidate if she was a proven leader. But it just kills me that you really think that Sarah Palin is even slightly qualified to lead a country just because she's a woman. She's been the head of the Alaska Oil Commission (that's not corrupt) and she is from a tiny town called Wasilla that happens to be a backwater, white-trash crank hole in the middle of nowhere (must be a lot of culture there!). She has a son in the Army, yet she wants to press McCain's agenda of staying in Iraq, and most likely pursuing a course of war with Iran. Oh, and did you stop to notice she's pro-life, too? She can't even make up her mind: she's against a woman's right to choose, but she's all about killing people in the name of shoving American customs down other people's throats. Pamela Anderson is a trashy, good looking woman too, does that mean she can run a country? Of course not! God, people like you make America look like the decaying pile of media-driven sheep it really is becoming. Great work, you officially can't make educated decisions!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Caucus Fraud

Blog powered by Typepad

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

November 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

Lynette's Favorites

  • Jon Krakauer : Into the Wild
  • Khaled Hosseini : The Kite Runner
  • Sara Gruen: Water for Elephants
  • Gilbert, Elizabeth: Eat, Pray, Love